Key House Republican supports extension of CSLAA provision

By Jeff Foust on 2012 January 25 at 6:55 am ET

A member of the Republican leadership of the House said Tuesday he supports an extension of a provision that limits the ability of the FAA to enact commercial spaceflight safety regulations. In an op-ed published in the Daily Independent newspaper in Ridgecrest, California, House Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) discusses commercial spaceflight, in particular activities at Mojave Air and Space Port, located in his district. “It’s clear that the private sector is ready and willing to step up to keep America at the forefront of space flight,” he writes.

He adds, though, that he’s concerned that regulation could impede future growth of the industry, citing in particular the provision in the Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act (CSLAA) of 2004 that prevents the FAA from enacting safety regulations except for cases linked to the “serious or fatal injury” of crew or participants, or events that “posed a high risk” of such injuries, during licensed or permitted flights. The expiration of that provision this December, he claims, “could mean a whole slew of new regulations on the growing $34 billion commercial space flight industry.” (The source of the $34-billion valuation for the industry isn’t cited.)

“There is no question that the safety of crew members and the public is of utmost importance, but unleashing Washington bureaucrats on this industry now could mean the end of private commercial space flight in America before it even gets off the ground,” he concludes. “That is why I am fighting to extend the 2004 provisions.” He doesn’t specify how he’ll seek to extend that regulatory restriction, but as noted here last week, the House version of an FAA reauthorization bill does provide an extension. A final version of the bill is expected to be completed in the coming weeks after House and Senate negotiators hammer out differences between their versions (the Senate version does not contain an extension) after reaching a deal last week on labor language that held up the bill for months.

Should the CSLAA provision not make it into the final FAA reauthorization bill, though, there may be additional opportunities before December 23 to include it in other legislation. For example, Congress will have to take up later this year another extension of commercial launch indemnification, as the current regime expires at the end of this year.

Newsflash AMW – FAA can regulate on that already – its in their charter. They can & should regulate with regard to the uninvolved public. They can even regulate for spaceflight participants when there is data to suggest that they might be in danger (but there has to be specific data, ie an inflight incident). This doesn’t mean an accident – Nobody was hurt during any of the SS1 flights, but each had an incident, and had CSLAA been the law during those flights, AST could’ve stepped in and offered regulation.

What they can’t do is write regulation without data. Or would you rather join other people, and cry over spilled milk?

Do us all a favor, and actually read the laws and understand what they mean.

14 people were unnecessarily killed on the Shuttle in accidents that could have been avoided, but they still allowed that to fly for decades. The commercial crew vehicles will at least not be using interminable RSRMs, or have heat-shields damageable by falling debris and will have an escape system. This will be an order of magnitude safer than the Shuttle.

Phoney concerns over “public safety” are just being used by people like AMW as a way of crushing commercial crew out of spite, not because they give a damn. It actually succeeding is a threat to people who support super expensive centralized statist approaches to spaceflight, such as SLS. This system will be less safe relatively and carries on it the energy content equivalent of a small nuclear weapon.

Commercial crew vehicles are all EELV class launchers that don’t even launch over land. The other vehicles are suborbital and are already highly regulated for performing flights over a 1000 feet.

This issue is better debated in the context of the indemnification discussions. Save it for the fall.

Speaking of phony concerns, the promulgation of commercial manned space safety regulations will accelerate, not hinder, manned commercial spaceflight. The existence of a regulatory structure will enable financial participation of more entities, growing the available capital pool ten-fold. Just look at the relationship between the insurers, business, and government to see the parallels. You will soon hear the business community saying that if indemnification is not extended, then they will have to exit the business due to its ultra hazardous nature.